Lucy Michaels v. Harbour Grand Hong Kong
Read the full judgment text of CACV 511/2018 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 7 May 2021.
1. This is the application of the plaintiff for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal on 27 August 2020 dismissing her appeal (“CA Judgment”). She has been acting in person throughout.
Cited by 2 cases
|
CACV 511 /2018 [2021] HKCA 654 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 511 OF 2018 (ON APPEAL FROM HCPI NO 898 OF 2016) ________________________
________________________ Before: Hon Kwan VP, Cheung JA and Yuen JA in Court Date of Written Submissions: 28 September 2020 Date of Judgment: 7 May 2021 ________________________ J U D G M E N T ________________________ Hon Kwan VP (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.This is the application of the plaintiff for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal on 27 August 2020 dismissing her appeal (“CA Judgment”). She has been acting in person throughout. 2.By the CA Judgment, the Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Paul Lam, SC made on 12 September 2018. The judge had ordered that the plaintiff’s claim in this action be struck out and dismissed her appeal against the decision of Master Leong, by which the master dismissed her application for summary judgment. 3.The plaintiff filed a notice of motion on 4 September 2020 for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the CA Judgment (“the 1st Notice of Motion”). 4.On 7 September 2020, she filed another notice of motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the CA Judgment with substantially the same grounds (the 2nd Notice of Motion”). 5.Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1 paragraph 3, the Registrar of Civil Appeals directed on 8 September 2020 that the 1st and 2nd Notices of Motion shall be determined on paper without an oral hearing. Pursuant to these directions, the plaintiff lodged her submissions on 28 September 2020. The defendant informed the court by the letter of its solicitors dated 14 October 2020 that the defendant would not respond to the plaintiff’s written submissions. 6.On 9 September 2020, the plaintiff filed a summons for stay of execution of the CA Judgment (“the Summons for Stay”) with a supporting affirmation. 7.On 30 October 2020, she filed a summons to set aside the CA Judgment (“the Setting Aside Summons”) with a supporting affirmation, one of her complaints is that no hearing took place in the lower court. 8.The Registrar directed on 21 September 2020 and 12 November 2020 respectively that the Summons for Stay and the Setting Aside Summons be considered by the Court of Appeal together with the two Notices of Motion. The Setting Aside Summons 9.We dismiss the Setting Aside Summons as this is plainly misconceived. The plaintiff has no right and no basis to ask the Court of Appeal to set aside the CA Judgment. She has already sought leave to appeal against the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. 10.Furthermore, contrary to her assertion, there was a hearing before the judge on 3 May 2018. The Court of Appeal dealt with her appeal on paper because the parties have agreed to disposal on paper without a hearing. The two Notices of Motion 11.The plaintiff stated in her submissions that she filed the 2nd Notice of Motion to replace the first because the date was wrongly specified in the 1st Notice of Motion and she asked the court to consider only the 2nd Notice of Motion. 12.We therefore dismiss the 1st Notice of Motion. 13.She stated the following as her grounds of appeal in the 2nd Notice of Motion:
14.In support of the 2nd Notice of Motion, she asserted that the court did not get to see the evidence submitted with her bundle which was replaced by the defendant’s bundle under threat and duress, and this shows “injustice from the court”. 15.Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, as the case may be, the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision. 16.In the CA Judgment at §§50 and 61, we have explained why the court refused to consider the additional documents submitted by the plaintiff and why we consider there was no administrative irregularity and the Registrar did not act improperly in declining to accept the plaintiff’s draft appeal bundle. There is no valid basis to argue that the Court of Appeal was wrong in this ruling. 17.The plaintiff has not shown any merits in her intended appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. She has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision in accordance with section 22(1)(b). There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the ‘or otherwise’ limb. 18.For the above reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss the 2nd Notice of Motion. The Summons for Stay 19.As the 2nd Notice of Motion is dismissed, it follows that the Summons for Stay of execution of the CA Judgment should also be dismissed. Costs 20.As the defendant has not taken part in any of the above applications, we make no order as to costs in dismissing all the plaintiff’s applications as mentioned above.
The Plaintiff (Appellant), acting in person Clyde & Co, for the Defendant (Respondent) |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 511/2018